Perhaps I'm being paranoid when a State Trooper in a position of influence over other State Troopers compares a group I personally associate with to violent criminals hiding behind misleading rhetoric.

But then again, perhaps I'm not the paranoid one here. Corporal Jensen's remarks darkly suggest a police organization being incited to intimidate those who do not toe their desired political line.

Mr. Jensen begins with a long disseration on his personal history as a lawman encountering a group known as the Posse Comitatus, which Jensen describes as:

"An organization that is viciously racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government. However the Posse adopts the rhetoric of patriotism, individual rights, local control, and defense of the Constitution to sell their poison to the public."

Remember that second sentence. He's going to use it to make a leap of logic a bit later.

For the record, I looked into the Posse Comitatus myself, and they do indeed seem to be a nasty crowd. It doesn't seem that Mr. Jensen exagerrates in describing them at all. It's where uses them as a bogeyman to demonize others that he begins to enter chilling new territory.

After a personal anecdote about nearly being killed by a Posse Comitatus member in the line of duty, Jensen writes...

"For 22 years I have had no use for radical tax protestors. They are irrational and a danger to a democratic society."

Surely he doesn't mean to broadly accuse all those who oppose higher taxes of being "dangers to a democratic society." Or does he?

"Here is my point: As radical as the Posse Comitatus is about protesting taxes, we have a radical anti-tax organization within our own state that advocatessome of the same Posse principles. Where the Posse uses violence and irrational right-wing beliefs to advance its cause, our Minnesota organization uses money, threats, and political blackmail to enforce its anti-tax, anti-government agenda. The organization is proud of its "no new taxes" pledge it has blackmailed many of our elected officials into signing, and posts its conquests prominently on its Web site. Although the organization isn't obviously violent, its final result is just as dangerous. We have radicals dictating how our quality of life will be effected." [all emphasis mine - ed.]

Which "Posse principles" is Jensen alluding to here? Is it: "racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government"? Or is it "patriotism, individual rights, local control, and defense of the Constitution."

Jensen doesn't say. Remember though, his objection to the Posse Comitatus by his own admission was the former. The latter was merely a mask that fooled people. According to Jensen, the former is the "poison." The latter just a sales pitch.

Jensen specifically raises the accusation of "blackmail." If I'm not mistaken, that's a crime. (Come to think of it, no idea why this comes to mind, but so are libel and defamation.)

Jensen suggests that the organization in question is not "obviously" violent. Why the qualifier?

And finally he states that this organization is "just as dangerous" as a group he previously described as "a danger to a democratic society."

Now we need to do a bit of detective work. In the entire course of the article Jensen never reveals the name of the organization he's talking about - the one just as dangerous as the Posse Comitatus. Yet as far as my research has revealed, there is only one Minnesota organization that has successfully persuaded Minnesota politicians to sign a "no new taxes" pledge, and put their names on a website. If I have this wrong, someone please correct me, and I will apologize and correct this immediately. But I seriously doubt that I do.

Later in this same article, after a bit of boilerplate advocacy for tax-increases, Jensen states:

"It's time for politicians to admit they were blackmailed into signing a "no new taxes" pledge."

That word blackmail again. It's a serious charge against the politicians too. It means they only took that pledge because they were forced to. They don't believe in it. They don't mean it. And Jensen wants them to admit this.

Jensen's concluding paragraph offers this:

"Whether you dress a tax-protestor in camoflage with an automatic rifle, or in a business suit with a laptop computer, the protestor is still nothing more than a radical."

Remember what he said about radicals earlier? His words: "a danger to a democratic society."

This is a man Minnesotans trust to enforce our laws justly. And yet, he is inciting his union members to consider an organization as benign as the Taxpayers League as much of a threat as a violent group of separatists.

Further, he specifically claims that politicians (Governor Pawlenty, Lt. Governor Molnau, Secretary of State Kiffmeyer, State Auditor Pat Anderson, U. S. Senator Coleman, every Republican Representative to U. S. Congress, and the majority of the Republican delegations to the State Senate and House) are victims of blackmail by this group.

This is so far beyond the pale of responsible political dialogue, I would seriously like to see it investigated for potential crime.

The state's law enforcement officers should not be so unstable they cannot distinguish between political disagreement, and violent political separatists. They should not be so irresponsible that they incite fellow law enforcement officers to think of law-abiding citizens as criminals. They should not be so insubordinate that they recklessly label state officials, and U. S. and State legislators as acting as they do only due to blackmail.

I will be writing every single state official Jensen proclaims a victim of blackmail, and asking them to answer Jensen publicly. I will also be requesting that they use every means at their disposal to protect law-abiding organizations that police unions politically disagree with from similar threats now and in the future.

Let me make clear, I hold Jensen personally responsible for this outrage. The union members did not write this, and should not be held accountable. But they should hold Jensen accountable for tarnishing their name. He should be forced to resign and apologize, and no one could be more effective at achieving this than the union members themselves.